Open thread June 16, 2017 Dan Crawford | June 16, 2017 7:42 am Tags: open thread Comments (4) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
Do any economic models really take into account (in more than an aggregated way) that for a large part of our economy growth depends on individuals at firms believing that they can increase profit by hiring more workers to make more stuff?
Just a couple of thoughts.
Crazy thought just occurred to me: under our actual labor practices all union certification may produce is the converseof what was intended. Since management is as likely as not to ignore the newly certified union — the only effect of certification may be to further insulate management from anybody else trying to bargain for the employees. Not that that comes up as a practical situation very often — but it makes a point about the lopsided imbalance of our American labor market.
* * * * * *
Having read the book about Hillary’s political demise, Shattered and Bernie’s book, Our Revolution — I saw Hill’s campaign contention that Bernie had no practical plan to do anything, only complaints about what’s wrong.
FDR had no specific plans as far as I know to accomplish what he accomplished in his first hundred days.
Hillary is Ms. top down and Bernie is Mr. bottom up. Top downs try to work out a calculus of all problems and ways to deal with all comprehensively — a sort of three dimensional chess game. Try and explain that to people. Obama made a big speech that “inequality is the defining issue of our time” (it is!) — didn’t poll well next week; forgot about it. Endless cajoling not his game. (“Stronger Together?”)
Bernie’s book spews seeming endless one-at-a-time tales of problems across all categories — astonishingly broad and deep iteration one-at-a-time.
Folks like FDR and Harry Truman and Bernie come at everyday folks one narrowed down complaint at a time. If you see the world from the bottom up you never stop trying — because you for sure never run out of individual irritations to get an ulcer over.
Top down folks have more fun. If you think you’ve manipulated the matrix the most you can do — you can relax and head for Martha’s Vineyard. Bottom up folks can be cheerful — but cheerful ain’t happy.
Top down solutions tend to sour because life is simply too complex to get a realistic hold on looking down through too many interlocking layers. Complexity yields more practicably to people and politicians in immediate interface with everyday reality.
sounds to me like saying economic growth depends on people expecting economic growth.
i think i’ve heard that one before.
pretty much exactly right. but you and me against the world isn’t going to change it.
i did work for a company with a union that was what i called a “kept union.” all the union officers were dying to become company officers. that tended to affect how much they would do for the workers.
i particularly like your “manipulated the matrix.” that seems to me to be their approach to “fixing” Social Security. in the end we will have a “compromise” where all the “players” get something of what they want. trouble is there is only one player who counts: the worker who pays his money into SS and will need that money when he can no longer work. i have tried to get people to understand this for about ten years now and can’t say i have succeeded.